Australia

Religion Makes us Meaner

/ MurrayCampbell

I agree.

Like sharks smelling a drop of blood, the media is swarming around the latest ‘religion is bad’ news story. This time, it comes in the form of a report that has been published in the journal Current ­Biology, by a group of researchers at Chicago University.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

Research leader, Dr Jean Decety, has said, “Together, these results reveal the similarity across countries in how religion negatively influences children’s altruism. They challenge the view that religiosity facilitates prosocial behavior, and call into question whether religion is vital for moral development—suggesting the secularization of moral discourse does not reduce human kindness. In fact, it does just the opposite,”¹

That is one gargantuan call to make, and with significant implications should the assertion be true.

The Australian newspaper offered this helpful summary of the study (Nov 6):

“In the study, more than 1100 kids aged between five and 12 were asked to share stickers with anonymous schoolmates. The subjects lived in North America, the Middle East, South Africa and China, and included Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists and Hindus.

Those from agnostic and atheist households consistently proved less likely to keep the best stickers to themselves. “The more religious the parents, the less altruistic the children, irrespective of the religion,” Dr Decety told The Australian.

He attributed the findings to a phenomenon dubbed “moral licensing”, where people’s perceptions that they were doing good — in this case, practising religion — exempted them from the obligation to perform other worthy deeds. “Apparently, doing something that helps strengthen our positive self-image also makes us less worried about the consequences of immoral behaviour,” he said.

The study also found that when the children were shown videos of “mundane” affronts, such as people bumping and pushing each other, religious kids were more inclined to decide harsh punishment was warranted. Dr Decety said this supported previous findings that organised religion promoted intolerance and punitiveness.”

I agree…in part.

I affirm the idea that religion can make people meaner and more selfish. This idea is hardly new, Christians have understood this since its earliest days, and it conforms to what the Bible has been saying since it was first written, millennia ago.

As Tim Keller put it in The Reason for God, “Those who believe they have pleased God by the quality of their devotion and moral goodness naturally feel that they and their group deserve deference and power over others. The God of Jesus and the prophets, however, saves completely by grace. He cannot be manipulated by religious and moral performance–he can only be reached through repentance, through the giving up of power. If we are saved by sheer grace we can only become grateful, willing servants of God and of everyone around us.”

According to Roman ch.1 religion stems from suppressing what is true, and creating and then depending upon things that are not true for meaning and salvation.

Subsequently, it is unsurprising to learn that religion is largely about self-justification; it is the human attempt to persuade God and others of one’s worthiness and goodness. Religion is about doing things and saying things in order to win God’s favour. Even acts of kindness can be a cover for gaining approval and for feeling better or happier about oneself. In other words, we shouldn’t be surprised to find that religion can make people, even children, mean.

The study doesn’t only suggest that religion makes children mean, it would have us believe that atheism makes children kind. Does unbelief enhance out potential for true altruism? A survey of non Government welfare agencies and charities will be hard pressed to find more than a handful that don’t have their foundations and funding in organised religion, especially Christianity. How many atheistic organisations can you think of that are working in our local communities and across the world to care for the poor and needy?

The average Australian gives away less than $200 each year, whereas Christians give on average, 5-9% of their annual income, and many give considerably more².

While I know some very friendly atheists, atheists are also among the most intolerant people in our society; listen to how many journalists, politicians, and social commentators now address Christians. For not subscribing to the secular agenda, Christians are labelled stupid and bigots, and Christian programs are being shutdown across the country.

History and contemporary society demonstrate that both religion and atheism are a problem. Should we debate who is worse, ISIS or Stalin? Surely evil is evil, whether it is perpetrated by the religious or irreligious.

How then, do we explain the findings of this outcome?

While I’m not dismissing the research, there are problems. For example,

1. In my opinion the study does not adequately differentiate between nominal religious believers and those who actually practice their religion. In particular, I am thinking of the distinction between Gospel (or Evangelical) Christianity and cultural Christianity. The use of the Duke Religiosity Questionaire may be useful as a sociology calculator but it is a poor theological and spiritual one.

2. The findings don’t properly differentiate between various religions. Islam and Christianity are at times lumped together, while other religions didn’t receive a large enough sample size to warrant analysis.

3. The research is making strong claims based upon limited research. Children completed a game and parents filled out a questionnaire, and from this we can now confirm that non religious families exude greater kindness than religious families? I think we call that, overreach.   

4. “Children from religious households favored stronger punishments for anti-social behavior and judged such behavior more harshly than non-religious children”. Why is this deemed a negative? It is quite possible that children from religious families have a stronger moral compass and therefore a greater sense of justice.

5. The study involved children from 6 countries: Canada, China, Jordan, South Africa, Turkey and the United States. To what extent have the researchers accounted for cultural differences, and how these affect the way children behave? The way that culture and religion relate in Jordan is different from China and indeed the USA.

In my view, there are simply too many questions for people to be jumping on the bandwagon. Remember, this is one study, and it is worth noting that its findings conflict with other research that has been conducted in recent times, which have found that belief in God makes people happier and more community oriented (https://murraycampbell.net/2015/09/24/new-evidence-suggests-that-the-closure-of-sri-was-a-mistake/).

Dr Decety and the team from Chicago University have driven us to an all to familiar dead end street: we want to maintain that religion and irreligion are our only options, but there is a third way. That is why the message of Christianity is so subversive and why it does not fit with the dimensions of human expectations.

Christianity teaches that everyone is sinful, yes, even children. Isn’t it ironic that when Christians make this suggestion it is called ‘child abuse’, and when secular academics make the same observation it is called science! We shouldn’t be surprised to learn that young children exhibit selfish and judgemental traits; it is human nature. Sometimes we clothe it in God-speech and promises of eternal reward, and other times we simply call upon humanitarianism.

Altruism is unattainable because we simply cannot do it. Both religious and non religious people are capable of love and acts of kindness, but inconsistently, partially, and often for self-seeking reasons. The history of the world is our autobiography, and we are seriously kidding ourselves if we think that we have climbed up the evolutionary tree: domestic violence in 1 in 3 Australian homes, over 80,000 unborn children killed each year, the revelations on Ashley Madison, cruel Asylum Seeker policies, ka-ching and the masterminds behind the pokies industry, and on and on.

But in Jesus Christ we see perfect love, selfless service and sacrifice for the good of others; he is uncompromising in holiness and generous in mercy:

“This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins”. (1 John 4:10)

This is the essence of Christianity:

“The gospel is this: We are more sinful and flawed in ourselves than we ever dared believe, yet at the very same time we are more loved and accepted in Jesus Christ than we ever dared hope.” (Tim Keller)

When a person comes to know this declaration of God’s love, they are changed, forgiven and liberated to truly love God with our whole being and to love our neighbour. It changes us to give without expectation of return, and to sacrifice for the good of those who despite us. Religion and irreligion are proven dead ends, but the Gospel of Jesus Christ promises a light that changes how we see everything.

——————

  1. http://news.uchicago.edu/article/2015/11/05/religious-upbringing-associated-less-altruism-study-finds

  2. See NCLS research for information regarding giving habits of Australian Christians. A summary of broader Australian giving can be found here – http://www.businessinsider.com.au/here-are-the-top-20-most-generous-suburbs-in-australia-2014-5

Dr Paul Ehrlich accusing Scripture classes of child abuse on QandA

/ MurrayCampbell / 3 Comments

Last night on QandA, guest panelist, Dr Paul Ehrlich (Professor of Biological studies at Stanford University), made an astonishing allegation regarding religious instruction in schools.

“We did, but we didn’t have child abuse required in those days. We didn’t have any religious instructions in the schools,” Dr Ehrlich said.

“Did you just say religious instruction is child abuse,” Jones asked the outspoken panellist.

“That’s what Richard Dawkins and lots of other people have said; that you teach people details about non-existent supernatural monsters and then behave in reaction to what you think they are telling you.”

“That’s child abuse. You don’t raise your kids that way,” Dr Ehrlich said.

Audience members then responded with applause.

I have heard similar comments before, made by angry and uninformed persons, but not by an intellectual and person of public standing. We have come to expect these types of accusations by supporters of FIRIS and others, but do the allegations have warrant? If this is a case of name calling, it is truly bad taste and Dr Ehrlich should apologise. If, however, the allegation is serious, action must be taken by both Government and police, for child abuse is rightly deemed appalling and never acceptable.

According to the Department of Human Services (DHS) child abuse is defined in the following ways:

“Child abuse is an act by parents or caregivers which endangers a child or young person’s physical or emotional health or development. Child abuse can be a single incident, but usually takes place over time.

In Victoria, under the Children Youth and Families Act 2005 a child or young person is a person under eighteen years of age.

Physical abuse

Physical abuse occurs when a child suffers or is likely to suffer significant harm from an injury inflicted by a child’s parent or caregiver. The injury may be inflicted intentionally or may be the inadvertent consequence of physical punishment or physically aggressive treatment of a child. The injury may take the form of bruises, cuts, burns or fractures.

Sexual abuse

Sexual abuse occurs when a person uses power or authority over a child to involve the child in sexual activity and the child’s parent or caregiver has not protected the child. Physical force is sometimes involved. Child sexual abuse involves a wide range of sexual activity. It includes fondling of the child’s genitals, masturbation, oral sex, vaginal or anal penetration by a penis, finger or other object, or exposure of the child to pornography.

Emotional abuse

Emotional Abuse occurs when a child’s parent or caregiver repeatedly rejects the child or uses threats to frighten the child. This may involve name calling, put downs or continual coldness from the parent or caregiver, to the extent that it significantly damages the child’s physical, social, intellectual or emotional development.

Neglect

Neglect is the failure to provide the child with the basic necessities of life such as food, clothing, shelter, medical attention or supervision, to the extent that the child’s health and development is, or is likely to be, significantly harmed.”

Do Scripture classes fall into any of these categories? What are the facts?

-Scripture classes are voluntary, with parents having the choice to opt-in their children or not.

-In the case of Christian SRI, these classes teach students basic Christian beliefs by reading and thinking about the Bible.

-Students are free to explore and ask questions.

-No one is compelled or forced to believe the ideas that are communicated, although students are encouraged to use their minds and hearts as they consider the big questions of life.

– The worldview taught in SRI is about truth, love, hope and kindness. Everything that child abuse is, is opposed by these programs.

The reality is, there is no substance to Dr Ehrlich’s allegations; certainly not in the case of Christian instruction classes. I cannot speak on behalf of other religions as I don’t have experience there, but no doubt they will respond for themselves.

Such a misuse of language may garner rapturous cheers from anti-religious supporters, but it contributes nothing to wise and constructive discourse.  In fact, Dr Ehrlich’s comments are incredibly irresponsible, and no doubt victims of child abuse would be justified for being hurt and outraged by them. 

Imagine the public outcry if a Christian panelist on QandA said that refusing children the opportunity to explore theism was akin to child abuse? What would Dr Ehrlich think if a person on national television accused him of child abuse? My point is, his comments are not mere rhetoric, they are allegations of utmost seriousness, and Dr Ehrlich, if he has any intellectual and moral integrity, should withdraw them.

Is it a donkey? Is it a lion? What has happened to freedom of speech?

/ MurrayCampbell

“You think freedom means doing what you like. Well, you’re wrong. That isn’t true freedom. True freedom means doing what I tell you.” (Shift, in The Last Battle)

I can’t remember many times when I have found myself agreeing with Germaine Greer, but on this occasion I am at least sympathetic with her situation. A petition with over 800 signatories is pushing to ban Germaine Greer from giving a lecture at Cardiff University, on account of her views about sexuality. That’s right, one the world’s most outspoken voices on women’s rights and sexual liberties is apparently too orthodox for these students.

1445718397585The author of the petition commented, ”Greer has demonstrated time and time again her misogynistic views towards trans women, including continually misgendering trans women and denying the existence of transphobia altogether.”

“While debate in a university should be encouraged, hosting a speaker with such problematic and hateful views towards marginalised and vulnerable groups is dangerous. Allowing Greer a platform endorses her views, and by extension, the transmisogyny which she continues to perpetuate.” (quoted in The Age October 25, Petition calls for university to ban Germaine Greer from event over ‘hateful’ transgender views)

Based on this explanation it sounds as though Germaine Greer must hold some very distasteful views about transgender people. However, when I listened to Greer’s views, it appears that the accusations are false. The point that so riled these Welsh students is that Greer believes that surgical and hormonal treatment does not make a man into a woman. In fact, Greer does little more than state a biological fact. Listen to this interview by the BBC (language warning):

The allegations are so ridiculous; I feel like I need to rub my eyes to make sure that I’m not living in some fantasy land. But no, this isn’t Narnia or Animal Farm.

The allegation of transmisogyny maybe unfounded, but that doesn’t matter because the accusation itself is an effective way to silence opposing views.  It may not have worked in the case of Germain Greer, not but not everyone is boisterous and thick skinned.

These students from Cardiff University have used a tool of debate that is becoming all to common:

  • Silence your opponents by accusing them of hate.
  • Silence your opponents by insisting that their views will lead to abuses.

No one is doubting that homosexual and transgender people have suffered abuses, and speaking out about such treatment is only right. The issue here, however, is not about protecting transgender people from hate and abuse, it is about denying people the freedom to discuss and disagree with the current sexual milieu. What makes this whole approach particularly ugly is that it is using people’s vulnerabilities and fears as a smoke screen for social engineering.

Germaine Greer is not the first victim of these Calormene-like speech police, this is the growing experience for many groups in the UK, Canada, Germany and the USA; especially Christian groups.

Sadly, this change of climate is also moving over Australian society, and a cold winter is gradually freezing out free speech. Take for example, Bill Shorten’s op-ed piece for Fairfax on the issue of the plebiscite for same-sex marriage:

“But I don’t think enough attention has been paid to the biggest risk a plebiscite brings – the danger and the damage of unleashing a divisive, drawn-­out debate.

A plebiscite could act as a lightning rod for the very worst of the prejudice so many LGBTI Australians endure. A platform for people to attack, abuse and demean Australians on the basis of who they love.”

In other words, we should by-pass public opinion because public views may not necessarily conform to the progressive agenda.

“You thought! As if anyone could call what goes on in your head thinking.” Just as Shift challenged the Bear who dared question him, we seem to be  moving toward a democratic totalitarianism, where society permits us to support same-sex marriage and sexual fluidity, but we are no longer free to offer a dissenting voice. Nowhere is this more evident than perhaps in Victoria where the Daniel Andrews’ Government is introducing policies that deliberately target the removal of Christian ideas and values from the public arena.

Deitrich Bonheoffer observed how the Reichstag Fire Decree of 1933 changed the public space in Germany. He wrote,

“Restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press, on the rights of the assembly and association, and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications, and warrants for house searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.”

We have begun down this insane path, and if the media and certain political parties are anything to go by, the journey is just beginning.

In light of this, I offer these 3 suggestions:

1. Don’t accept the premise behind the case for marriage change. Disagreement and disapproval does not equal hate. The Bill Shorten’s and Cardiff students of this world would have us believe that there are only two roads to travel, either total acceptance or hate and fear. Both options are untenable. Christians know that the Gospel of Jesus Christ offers us a third way, that of loving and reasonable disagreement.

2. Don’t yield to the pressure and remain silent. It is important for the plurality of Australian voices to be heard in the public space.

3. Speaking up is no longer free; it will come at a cost. Our situation is unusual in light of world history; we have enjoyed social freedoms that people in many other parts of the world have never experienced. It has been possible to speak openly without any genuine sacrifice, perhaps a few crude comments thrown our way but nothing more. We need to wake up to the fact that Australia has changed, and for Christians, Jesus’ words about taking up our cross may become more than just words.

A donkey dressed up as a lion is still a donkey, no matter how much a monkey tells you otherwise. That old Narnian like Bear, Germaine Greer, has spotted a fraud in public discourse and we Aussies’ would be wise to also question the course that national conversation is now taking.

Puzzleaslan

Music and Abortion

/ MurrayCampbell / 3 Comments

Scientists have discovered that babies in the womb, as young as 16 weeks, respond to music by ‘dancing’.

“The foetuses responded to the music by moving their mouths or their tongues as if they wanted to speak or sing,” said one of the researchers, Marisa Lopez-Teijon. The research has been published in journal of the British Medical Ultrasound Society, Ultrasound.

417592-8b82b764-6d5e-11e5-a21c-437ddd761843

What this means is that babies’ cognitive faculties, creative faculties, and listening and communication skills are more highly developed at 16 weeks than previously thought.

The more scientists study human beings in the womb, the more wonder, beauty and complexity we discover. As scientific research advances, the findings increasingly demonstrate that embryos are not less human but fully human, and from the very earliest stages.

I am reminded of the words spoken by one excited mum, ‘As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy’ (Luke 1:44).

It was interesting to note that the article in The Australian, while sometimes referring to embryos, also addresses them as babies. The days when scientists and proabortionists justified abortion by claiming embryos were not human has long gone.

This latest research makes the reality of abortions even more appalling. It is a dreadful paradox of our society, that a child who enjoys listening to music in the womb can, on the same day, be killed in the womb.

How can we justify killing a child who in their first weeks of life is being moved by the sounds of Mozart and Bach? Not that responding to music defines their humanity but it further proves their humanity. He or she is not potential life, but is life with a mind and body that is active and alert.

Science is showing us the ignominy of our attitudes toward the unborn, but will we listen? We have longed turned deaf to the Bible’s pleas about the sanctity of life, and I suspect that we will also turn a blind eye to these amazing revelations that are being proven through empirical research.

Through music, science is affirming an ancient theological truth, embryos are people like us. But will we listen?

If you are reading this post as someone who struggles with a past decision to undergo an abortion, I want you to know that the good news of Jesus Christ means that real forgiveness and healing is promised through him. Abortion is wrong, but it is not the unforgivable sin. Again, please contact our church counsellor. If you don’t live near Mentone but are keen to find out more, please contact us and we’ll try to find a suitable church near where you live. 

A letter to Adam Goodes

/ MurrayCampbell
Adam Goodes of the Swans in action during the AFL 2nd Qualifying Final match between the Adelaide Crows and the Sydney Swans at AAMI Stadium, Adelaide. (Photo: Michael Willson/AFL Media)

(Photo: Michael Willson/AFL Media)

Dear Adam Goodes,

We met briefly a few years ago and you graciously allowed me to take a photo of yourself with my two young boys. They were only aged 7 and 6 at the time, but they remember the occasion still. 

Like many other Australians, I would like to see you participating on Grand Final day at the MCG. As a footballer, you have achieved success at a level that very few players will ever reach, and for that reason alone it is fitting for you to be recognised on that day.

Whether you decide to participate or not, I will not judge you. I believe it is too easy for non Aboriginal people (like myself) to arrive at conclusions as to how Indigenous Australians should or should not think and feel about their roles in Australia today.

I am sorry that you have been treated with such disdain on account of your race. I am offended for you. It must surely concern Australians that issues of race persist in 2015. While many prejudices and stereotypes have been taken away, it is clear that we have not yet arrived at where we need to be.

As a Christian I accept the Bible’s picture of what heaven will be like, and as part of its canvass the Bible describes how the nations will be present. The word that is used for nations has less to do with geo-political boundaries and is more about people groups. Race is not diminished, and no race is exalted over another, but on account on Jesus Christ peoples from every language and tribe are welcomed and received. While I am confident of where history will end, it is right to pursue this heavenly vision in our present time. To this end, we need to hear the stories of Aboriginal people, to learn, and for Australians to repent of past and present sins against the First Australians.

I wish to extend my congratulations to you on a great football career, and should you decide to take part on Grand Final day, I would hope that you receive a worthy applause.

Yours Sincerely,

Murray Campbell

We are better than this!

/ MurrayCampbell

…apparently not.

Five Prime Ministers in seven years.

Last night’s shenanigans in Canberra was a eureka moment for Australian media, and I confess that I was stuck to my television and to twitter like that final strand of spaghetti that you can never scrape off the bottom of the saucepan.photo (2)

The second by second drama being played out on the ABC was dripping with more bolognese sauce than you can find in all Italy. We have officially lost all rights to mock the Italian political system, as comic as it has been for many years. We used to laugh at them, but now we are laughing at ourselves, and we must because otherwise we would hear our groans as we grow increasingly exasperated at our national leaders.

I share the view of many Australians, and that removing a sitting Prime Minister is imprudent and unsavoury; it may be within the rules of political warfare but as history has shown us, it is counter-productive.

586300-turnbull

Our recent history of political hits may belong to the script of a Spaghetti Western, and it also reflects our society’s heart more closely than is comfortable. Yes, we want our leaders to stop following opinion polls and  instead lead, and yet we demand them to do our bidding. We want a vision for our nation’s future, but we are too greedy to wait or to sacrifice for the good of our children. A society that demands solutions now and without personal cost has not learned the meaning of community. And so it should not surprise us to see that our Governments turn to expediency in both policy and people. That leaves me wanting to urge our Governments to govern well, and it also leaves me with a greater anticipation for the perfect Government that is God’s.

Government is an expression of God’s grace and provision for the common good of society; it is a God given means to create order, peace and justice (Romans ch.13). But even the best functioning Government is only a tiny impression of what God promises us in Christ:

“For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders.

And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Of the greatness of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David’s throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. The zeal of the Lord Almighty will accomplish this.” (Isaiah 7)

One day our political system will become redundant, but in the mean time we Christians want to take seriously both Romans ch.13 and 1 Timothy ch. 2. This morning I have begun by putting into practice these words written by the Apostle Paul,

‘I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people—  for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good, and pleases God our Savior…’

War and justice, where conflict meets

/ MurrayCampbell

12 Bible Propositions about the Ethics of War

During the week the Government announced that they would be stepping up their bombing offensive against ISIS in Syria. Subsequently, the debate over the ethics of war has once again resurfaced.
RAAF_(A44-222)_FA_18F_Super_Hornet_landing
The question I am seeking to address here is somewhat narrower, should Christians to ever support war? Could participating in war be consistent with Christian faith?
Answering these questions is no easy task, partly due to the fact that the Scriptures do not give us a definitive position, and partly because the rationale and particulars of one armed conflict will differ to the next. And in every conflict there are multifarious motives, aims, and experiences which combined deny us the possibility of simple and obtuse theorems about war.
Historically, Christians have come to different conclusions regarding the practice of war. We cannot ignore the fact that there have times when ‘in the name of Christ’ many anti-Christ acts have been committed. Sins of commission have stained history blood red, and perhaps so have sins of omission. Christians must not build their theology of war from either Gandhi or Napoleon, but rather it stems from the belief that God is the Lord of history and that he has given a book that speaks truth and wisdom, even in the 21st Century.
In attempting to construct a theology of war there are a series of theological propositions that must not be ignored or relegated:

Continuity

1. The God of the New Testament is the God of the Old Testament. Christians are not Marcionites. God is not honoured by the fallacious suggestion that the God of the Old Testament is a different God to the New Testament, or that his character has changed, or that in the Old Testament God was wrong to make war. God’s character is eternal and unchanging.
2. God is holy and just. God’s acts of violence are described as God’s just judgements on sinners. He is a holy God who cannot tolerate sin. Should God tolerate rape? Should God tolerate people sacrificing babies to Molech? Should God tolerate the greedy stealing from the poor? God did not sanction all the violence and war that was exercised in the Old Testament, however, he did oversee and lead some war.
3. God has an understanding of justice that no person or group of people possess. He also has the ability to always do right which not even Christians can achieve.

Discontinuity

Christians cannot read the Old Testament without through the lens of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, who is the fulfilment of all the Scriptures – “Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms” (Luke 24:44).
4. The Old Testament has a geo-political centre that is removed by Jesus in the New Testament. Whereas God’s people in the Old Testament were a nation, God’s people are now from and in every nation. God’s Kingdom is of a different nature, As Jesus said to Pilate, ‘My kingdom is not of this world’.
5. God’s anger is demonstrated supremely in the cross of Jesus where Christ died to satisfy God’s righteous wrath. History has a cross dividing it, such that there is no longer any moral or theological support for Holy War this side of the cross. God’s righteousness is revealed in the Gospel of Jesus Christ and his propitious death brings peace to all who believe. This once for all death has an efficacy for disarming hate, anger and greed:
“When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross. And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.” (Colossians 2:13-15)
6. The Kingdom of God grows through the proclamation of the word of God, and not through political or military means. Christians believe in war, but it is a spiritual war, one that is engaged by putting on the armour of God (faith, righteousness, truth, etc) and by using the sword of the Spirit (the Bible) and undergirding it all with prayer. If the power of God for salvation is in the Gospel of Jesus, then it is erroneous to believe that Christianity will extend through war. Not only that, it suggests that coercion is an effective means to grow the Church, whereas the Bible speaks nothing of coercion but it does speak of persuasion through speaking truth and living out God’s love to all.
7. The Bible nowhere teaches that a Church can engage in war, and it gives us no room for supposing that armed conflict can aid Christian progress, however it does leave room for the possibility for the State to engage in war.
The State is not the Church. In Romans ch.13 the Apostle teaches,
“Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.”
i. Governments are not beyond the rule of God, even though they may reject his dominion.
ii. Governments have a value in and for this world, for the good of society, which includes collecting taxes to pay for civic needs, and to judge and punish those who do wrong.
iii. At the very least verse 4 refers to law enforcers and the judicial system that exists within a nation, but it is likely that Paul also has in mind the exercise of military action. Even if Romans 13:4 is not speaking of war and only of civic responsibilities, the point is nonetheless unavoidable, Paul affirms that there is a place for Governments to use the sword in punishing wrongdoing.

Further Principles

8. There is a difference between turning the cheek and loving our neighbour. If one saw their neighbour being attacked, it would be immoral to stand by and do nothing, and it would be right to come to their aid, to defend them and fend off the attacker. While Christians ought to pursue peace, even at great personal cost, loving our neighbour may necessitate military intervention.
9. “If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone” (Romans 13:18).
10. The Bible discounts many of the reasons that have been used in history and in contemporary global and sociopolitical scenarios for waging war: for conquest, for profit, for revenge, and for religious advantage.
11. When Christians engage in war it should not be under the banner of Church or Gospel, but as as expression of submitting to the Government and loving our neighbour.
12. People should not go against the conscience, except when their conscience violates Scripture.
Can war ever be just? Ultimately the answer to that question is no, because even on a good day people are prone to sinful desires. War is never just but it may be justifiable. Occasions of crisis may arise where more action is required than simply prayer and good wishes. It is a loving act to lay down ones life for a friend, and even more so for a stranger who is being oppressed by a militaristic regime.
Should Christians fight in war? Often the answer will be no. We ought to be reluctant. But there may be circumstances where the Government decides to go to war, and should the reasons be congruent with a Christian’s understanding of the Bible, participating in that war is permissible.
War, however, is not the ultimate solution to evil in the world; only the Gospel of Jesus Christ is powerful enough and pure enough and sufficient enough to do such a penetrating work in the human heart. The world lives in the epoch of peace, where God is manifesting his patience and grace, calling men and women to repentance and reconciliation. While millions of people are coming to realise and experience God’s shalom, there remains much that is wrong in the world, such that even the most laudable acts of human kindness and justice can not overcome.  Christians, though, believe that God remains holy and he promises a day when he will judge the living and the dead. Many injustices may escape our attention, but they will not allude God:
“I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and wages war. His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. Coming out of his mouth is a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. “He will rule them with an iron scepter.” He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty.  On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written:
King of kings and lord of lords.” (Revelation 19:11-16)

What Does the Bible teach us about Refugees?

/ MurrayCampbell / 4 Comments

We all come to the topic of refugees with different influences and assumptions: our own family background, any personal involvement we’ve had with Refugees or lack thereof, the political party we support, the way we listen to the media and who in the media we listen to. And after all, as everyone agrees, this is a complex issue.

It is important though for Christians to begin with the Bible and let God’s word to shape our views about Refugees, although I’d argue that what the Bible teaches is good not only for Christians but for everyone.

The article isn’t short, and partly so to demonstrate how significant a topic refugees is in the Bible.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

I want to begin by walking through the Bible and pointing out some principles that relate to our issue. Once we’ve done some work with the Bible let’s try and apply these principles to the current debate about refugees.

What does the Old Testament teach us about Refugees?

We begin at the beginning with Genesis chapter 1 and God saying, 

    “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.”

All human beings are made in the image of God. Every human being from every nation and language, and who has ever lived, bears the image of God and therefore is to be recognized as fully human and given that dignity.

In the Bible we meet all kinds of people: some people are Jewish, many are not. Some are wealthy, others poor. Some are strong, others are weak. On the pages of Scripture we learn about hundreds of men and women by name, and many millions more are mentioned by their tribe or nation, and among this throng are refugees, normally referred to as aliens or strangers, although not always. The noun alien occurs over 100 times in the OT alone. Sometimes we are told their story without the language of alien being used, but it is nonetheless clear from the context that the person on view is a refugee. We may be surprised to learn how many refugees are spoken of in the Bible and how much teaching there is on this subject. The Bible is not deaf toward Refugees and Asylum Seekers.

Let’s turn to Abraham for a minute. Abraham was called by God to leave the land of the Chaldeans and journey to the land he would show him. The land of Canaan was promised to Abraham but he never owned any of the land during his lifetime except one plot, a burial sight for his wife Sarah. Listen to how Abraham describes himself before the Hittites, who the local inhabitants of the land:

     ‘Then Abraham rose from beside his dead wife and spoke to the Hittites. He said, “I am an alien and a stranger among you. Sell me some property for a burial site here so I can bury my dead.”’

    The Hittites replied to Abraham, “Sir, listen to us. You are a mighty prince among us. Bury your dead in the choicest of our tombs. None of us will refuse you his tomb for burying your dead.”

    Again Abraham bowed down before the people of the land and he said to Ephron in their hearing, “Listen to me, if you will. I will pay the price of the field. Accept it from me so I can bury my dead there.”

Abraham defined his status in Canaan as being an alien.  Today we use different words to describe the various peoples moving to Australia – migrants, refugees, asylum seekers, and we make distinctions between them. We do so partly out of legal necessity. However, as a far I can tell, the Bible doesn’t make such delineations. Whether a person arrives in a new land because of God’s calling or because they chose to move or because they were forced through persecution or famine, whatever the reason, they are all considered aliens. And all were to be treated the same. Genesis 23 tells us that this is how Abraham saw himself, and we see that the Hittites welcome Abraham, show him respect, and they permit him to buy the burial site (contrary to cases where the Australian Government decided to leave the bodies of refugees in the ocean to rot and be eaten by fish).

Abraham is not the only Bible hero who was an alien:

i. Joseph’s family, and then the whole people of Israel became refugees. Because of famine they were forced to leave Canaan and move to Egypt where they remained 400 years.

ii. Moses became a refugee, fleeing Egypt and living in Midian for 40 years. In Exodus 2 he refers to himself as an alien and named his son ‘gershom’ which means alien in the land.

iii. The book of Ruth is a story about refugees. Naomi’s family moved to Moab, but after the death of her husband and boys she returns to Israel. Ruth, her daughter-in-law goes with her and enters the land as an alien. The book then gives us a detailed account about how the Levitical law is applied to refugees and does so in the most beautiful and tender-hearted way. Ruth of course, belongs to family-line from which Jesus would come.

iv. The prophet Jeremiah was a war refugee. When the Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem Jeremiah and some others escaped to Egypt and remained there until their deaths.

It’s clear from all these examples that being a refugee is not by definition sinful or unacceptable. It is sometimes the right response of the people of God.

The Bible doesn’t only give us stories of refugees, the Bible also provides teaching on how to respond to this issue. The law stipulated how the people of God were to treat non-believers who sought refuge in the land of Israel:

    “Do not mistreat an alien or oppress him, for you were aliens in Egypt. ( Exodus 22:21)

    “Do not oppress an alien; you yourselves know how it feels to be aliens, because you were aliens in Egypt. (Exodus 23:9)

    Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the alien. I am the LORD your God. (Leviticus 19:10)

    When an alien lives with you in your land, do not mistreat him. (Leviticus 19:33)      

 The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt. I am the LORD your God (Leviticus 19:34).

The multitude of verses that speak to this issue should alone communicates to us that this subject is important to God.

To summarise: Israel was not to mistreat or oppress aliens. They were to welcome, to love, to care and provide. There is no sense in which the attitude was, ‘we’ll let you in, but once you’re in you have to fend for yourselves’. There was ongoing relationship and provision.

The constant refrain in Mosaic Law is this, ‘remember you were once aliens’.  How true is this for Australia. 25% of our 22 million Australians were born overseas. That’s 5.5 million of us! I understand that those 5.5 million have migrated to this country under different banners, many were refugees and some came by boat. My point here is that 25% of Australians understand what it is to leave your home country and find a new home.  Not only that, 44% of us were either born overseas or had parents who were born overseas. That’s almost half of the population. And where do we think Aussies with Irish, English or Scottish descend come from? That’s right, from Ireland, England and Scotland, from overseas, and most came by boat!

Back to the Bible, we read that aliens were given similar rights and responsibilities as native born Israelites:

Brian Rosner has written, “strangers were to be treated as native-born Israelites with only a few qualifications. The non-assimilating strangers were not prohibited from eating anything found dead (Deut 14:21; cf. Lev 17:15 which apparently refers to the assimilating stranger). A second difference is more profound: assimilating strangers were not considered Israelites in the full ethnic sense, probably in recognition that their ancestors did not experience the saving events of the Exodus and Passover.”

The aliens had obligations as well, for instance, they were to abide by the law of Israel. ‘You are to have the same law for the alien and the native-born. I am the LORD your God.’ (Leviticus 24:22). This law is not only just but it’s sensible. You can’t have one law for one group, and another for a different group. That’s not called a country, that’s called countries!

Welcoming the stranger was integral to living as members of the covenant people:

You loved God by loving the refugee.

Brian Rosner makes this poignant observation: “Most remarkably of all, in the same chapter where the famous and often quoted ‘love your neighbour as yourself’ appears, in Leviticus 19 the Israelites are commanded to ‘love the alien’ (v.34). The definition of the neighbour to be loved extends it seems to the foreign immigrant, without the restriction that they be of the less objectionable assimilating kind.”

It was a covenant issue. It was a godliness issue. It was a justice issue. For example Deuteronomy 27:19 and Malachi 3:5:

    “Cursed is the man who withholds justice from the alien, the fatherless or the widow.” Then  all the people shall say, “Amen!”

    “So I will come near to you for judgment. I will be quick to testify against sorcerers,adulterers and perjurers, against those who defraud laborers of their wages, who oppress  the widows and the fatherless, and deprive aliens of justice, but do not fear me,” says the  LORD Almighty.

Withholding justice from the alien was sufficient reason for God to judge Israel.

At the same time, we need to keep in mind that the nations were frequently Israel’s and God’s enemies. It’s not as every though Tom, Dick, Harry and Philistine was welcome. If you turned up with a sword in one hand and an idol in the other, there were policies! We mustn’t wrongly conclude that it was free entry into Israel. However, to those who sought refuge, for a variety of reasons, they were permitted stay and live.

What does the New Testament teach us about Refugees?

Come the New Testament we learn that the overall view toward refugees remains the same as in Old Testament. However there is a shift in emphasis.

In the OT the emphasis was Israel being this light that would radiate to the nations and attract people to Israel. That focus changes in the NT; it’s not the nations going to Jerusalem, it’s Jerusalem going to the nations. It’s the people of God moving out into the world, to reach people for Christ.  God’s plan was always to encompass the nations (that’s what the Abrahamic covenant is about), but with Jesus’ coming the command has become, go to the nations.

Having said that, the life and ministry Jesus has things to teach us about treating refugees.

Matthew’s Gospel records the event when Jesus was a young child, and he and his parents were forced to flee not only from Bethlehem, but Judea, and they entered Egypt as Refugees. They fled one country and entered another because of persecution. God’s Son knows what it’s like to be displaced, to face such opposition in your homeland from the Government that the family is forced out, and they traveled, not by a boat, but by foot across a treacherous desert.

Also, in Jesus’ first recorded sermon he says:

    ‘The scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written: “The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”

     Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him, and he began by saying to them, “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.”’ (Luke 4:17-21)

The year of the Lord’s favour is a reference to the Jubilee year. The Jubilee year was a year of reconciliation when were debts paid or released, and when slaves were freed. Jesus is saying that with his coming, this Jubilee has also come. And we see Jesus living this Jubilee year throughout his public ministry: caring for the poor, for the widow, he ministered to people who were outside Israel as a way of showing that God’s plan is for the nations (The Centurion and Samaritan woman for example). Jesus welcomes the stranger and he is even portrayed as the stranger in John 1, ‘he came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him.’

There are two further texts that need mentioning:

    ‘All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance. And they admitted that  they were aliens and strangers on earth’. (Hebrews 11:13)

In the long list of faith heroes from the OT there exhibited a faith in the promises of God, a faith which understood that the promise fulfilled was not a homeland on this earth. These early believers admitted that they were aliens and strangers on earth.

1 Peter says something similar,

    ‘Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,

    To God’s elect, strangers in the world, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the  Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood’

There is a view in the New Testament that I think Christians in Western countries fail to value, and that is, this land is not our home. In fact both Hebrews and 1 Peter are suggesting something stronger than that this is not our land, they are almost debunking nationhood. The posture they argue for certainly guards us from being overly protective about calling anything on earth ours. We are strangers who are passing through; this is a hotel room for a relatively short period. Do we hold on to our property, or national identity, or borders more rigidly than our theology permits us? That’s a question worth asking. I am not suggesting that nationality is irrelevant or that being Australian doesn’t mean something and not hold any significance; the nations are there present and active in the book of Revelation. But I would ask, are our notions of nationhood helps for Gospel work or inhibitors? I suspect it’s a bit of both.

Suggested ways the Gospel can shape our response to the Refugee Crisis:

1. The Gospel way is to welcome and care for the alien.

God has welcomed us into his kingdom; he gave us the rights of sons and daughters, for which we had no claim or right.

2.The Gospel isn’t ignorant of security issues.

Part of loving the other is making sure that our neighbours are safe. It would be irresponsible for us to rashly let anyone into the country and without proper security checks, and therefore put our neighbours at risk. That wouldn’t be Gospel-minded. I don’t know of anyone suggesting we fling the doors open to everyone without discernment, that’s a straw man argument.

3. The Gospel way is also to obey the Government.

We find this principal clearly taught in Romans 13. Sometimes these two things, Gospel and Government, are at odds with one another, certainly the relationship is often tricky. We need wisdom, prayerful wisdom, so that we learn how can we live out the Gospel of grace in this area of society.

4.The Gospel means sacrifice.

Sacrifice is not something we talk about, it is something to practice. Sacrifice is difficult, not only for the general populace, but for Christians also. But the Gospel of Jesus Christ is about sacrifice, and it provides us not only with the model for sacrifice but the very freedom to do so.

On the ABC this morning, Tim Costello said that, “On a per capita basis, for Australia to be ‘generous’, we’d increase our intake by 215,000”. We now have a figure, one that surpasses the 10,000 or 20,000 that various political parties have proposed. Will it cost us? Yes, but that is the nature of sacrifice, that is the point of love.

From what I hear in the media it sounds as though much of this debate is being framed by fear. I don’t think it’s primarily about racism, though that’s there. I think it’s more to do with fear. People are fearful of change, fearful of the unknown, fearful of what might happen to our standard of living should we welcome more people. The Gospel is not built on fear, but love, and love expressed through compassion and sacrifice. That can be hard. And the reality is, not everyone who migrates to Australia (whether as a refugee or through other avenues) is deserving. Not every one who comes to Australia is grateful for being here. But isn’t that the cost of love? Isn’t that what Jesus did? He absorbed the sin of the world, he took on his himself all our pain and shame, and the world did not receive him. And yet through this act of grace God has welcomed home those who did not formerly belong.

——

Note about the article: This is an updated version of a blog piece that I published 2 years ago, which is based on notes from a sermon on the same topic. Two years on, people continue to read it everyday, making it one one of the most read articles from the Mentone Baptist blog. In other words, the issue of refugees is never far from the minds of many Australians.

One Christian’s Response to Paul Sheehan’s Call for Increasing Australia’s Refugee Intake

/ MurrayCampbell / 6 Comments

Fairfax Media has published an astonishing piece by Paul Sheehan, Operation rescue: the Christians of the Middle East face extinction. It is remarkable because it pushes against the assumed political correctness that often strangles public conversation in Australia today, and it contrasts the mood of our secularist dominated media which is obsessed with denigrating all things Christian.1441571094171

Sheehan presents two reasons why Australia should increase its refugee intake, and to allow these numbers to consist of displaced Christians from the Middle East:

Firstly, he is right to point out that, ‘For the past 20 years Christians have been ethnically cleansed across much of the Middle East as part of the rise of Muslim militancy’. This is true, although the persecution has existed far longer than 20 years. Christians remain among the most vulnerable and persecuted peoples in the world, and what we are witnessing in the Middle East is but one example.

Christians are not the aggressors in these Middle Eastern conflicts; they are among the most targeted victims. Christians are literally being exterminated. The New York Times published a piece in July revealing the extent of the  persecution.

I have already read several responses to Paul Sheehan, where people are blaming the ‘Christian’ West for the situation in Iraq and Syria. But to fuse Christianity with the West is a sloppy an analysis as calling all Arabs, Muslim or all Syrians, Muslim. The fact is, the conflict between Sunni and Shia, and their common dislike for Christians and other minority groups, pre-dates era 9/11, President Bush Senior, and prior to the Sykes–Picot Agreement of 1919. That is not to say that Western intervention hasn’t made issues more complex; it has been one hundred years of immoral intrusion, but it is grounded in selfish capitalism, not sacrificial Christianity. Syrian Christians and Iraqi Christians cannot be blamed for the West, and Western transgressions aside, the fact remains that Christians are being targeted, thousands have been slaughtered, and survivors forced out of their homes to flee for their lives.

The international community increasingly recognised that Christians in the Middle East have become a displaced people group, and therefore a humanitarian response is to welcome them into Australia.

Second, Sheehan argues that Christians will better assimilate into Australian society.

He believes that Christians are less of a threat to social cohesion in Australia than some other groups. I am not an expert on Sunni/ Shiate tensions, and so I can’t evaluate his point. Perhaps the concern has warrant and therefore it’s not without consequence, and I am sure that there are experts out there who can make comment. Having said that, there can be no doubt that there are also significant numbers of Sunnis and Shias who are victims of atrocities; where they are fleeing from their homelands we ought to consider welcoming them.

I do not believe that we should exclude refugees on account of their race, culture, or religion. If a neighbour’s house is on fire, you don’t first ask them for their passport, resume, or survey their theology; you help them on account of their humanity.

In other words, I am persuaded by Paul’s Sheehan’s first point, but not his second.

I also support Sheehan’s idea of Churches working in conjunction with the Federal Government. I am certain that Australian Churches will gladly work together with the Government to assist these refugees, whether they are Christian or not. To this end, I am encouraging Mr Abbott, Mr Dutton, Ms Bishop to speak with Christian leaders across the country.

Finally, there is a certain irony in all of this, these Christians are fleeing lands that don’t want them, perhaps only to arrive in a new land that is increasingly expressing malice towards Christians. The methods are different, but the motive is similar. For instance, I read this caustic response to Paul Sheehan, ‘Don’t let Christians in. Let people of reason in. Giving people an advantage because they follow a palatable brand of delusion doesn’t seem fair.’ Sadly, this sentiment is all too common in Australia today. One can only hope that the irrationality of such foolish people is muted by the voice of generosity and welcome.